The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the court below's imprisonment (four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine the legality of the decision of the court below by public notice ex officio.

A. Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings and Articles 18(2) and (3) and 19(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provide that, when the whereabouts of the defendant is not verified even though the defendant was taken necessary measures to confirm the whereabouts of the defendant, service by public notice shall be made in the latter case. Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that service by public notice shall be made only when the dwelling, office, or present location of the defendant is unknown. Thus, if other contact numbers of the defendant appear in the record, service by public notice shall be conducted immediately without taking such measures, and it shall not be permitted to serve by public notice and render a judgment without the defendant's statement.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do3892, Jul. 12, 2007; 201Do6762, Jul. 28, 2011). (B)

According to the records of this case, "H at Jeju" is written at the defendant's address as the defendant's address, and "I" is written at his own contact address as the defendant's contact address, and the statement of opinion (in the face of 29 pages of investigation record), the fact that "J" is written at the defendant's contact address can be acknowledged.

C. In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the lower court concluded that the Defendant’s whereabouts cannot be confirmed immediately without taking such measures, and that documents related to the lawsuit, such as a duplicate of the indictment and the summons of the Defendant, should be served by public notice prior to making a decision of service by public notice, even if the Defendant should have tried to contact with the Defendant’s contact address (JJ and I).